Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blndmage wrote:
Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.

Unfortunately sequencing does not help.

You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.

If you trigger effects off a wound that a model did not lose, you are breaking the rules.

p5freak wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.

Unfortunately sequencing does not help.

You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.

If you trigger effects off a wound that a model did not lose, you are breaking the rules.

As much as I wish this was true, the rules actually don't say that. Disgustingly Resilient and Ichor Warding have the same trigger of the model losing a wound. Sequencing does come into effect, which is a crappy way to resolve such a rules interaction (on my turn it works one way, but on your turn a different way because that the way we individually want it to work). I cross my fingers that the Makari wording of if "if this model would lose a wound... the model doesn't lose a wound" replaces the older wording in all future rules. It is even a good candidate for a Rare Rules Interaction.

The rules do say that. Logic says that as well.

You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do say that. Logic says that as well.

You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.

Not sure if logically it should go first. As FNP is like someone that got stabbed in the gut but kept on going through the pain where as someone else could take the same hit and go down screaming in pain, as a model that is removed is not necessarily dead but out of the battle as they can no longer fight. A model in our games could be mortally wounded and will definitely die AFTER our 5 turn battles but was still struggling through the pain and continued to fight. In the instance with Ichor it could be in this way as he TOOK that wound, that pustule was broken and sprayed back at your unit, but it wasn't enough to truely effect him in battle.

But please quote where in the rules it says you do FNP before other effects that are triggered off losing a wound.

Vrigor wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do say that. Logic says that as well.

You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.

Not sure if logically it should go first. As FNP is like someone that got stabbed in the gut but kept on going through the pain where as someone else could take the same hit and go down screaming in pain, as a model that is removed is not necessarily dead but out of the battle as they can no longer fight.

I was talking about game logic, not real-world scenarios. What would happen in the real world has no bearing on the 40K rules.

A model in our games could be mortally wounded and will definitely die AFTER our 5 turn battles but was still struggling through the pain and continued to fight. In the instance with Ichor it could be in this way as he TOOK that wound, that pustule was broken and sprayed back at your unit, but it wasn't enough to truely effect him in battle.

Do not bring fluff into a rules discussion, it never ends well.

But please quote where in the rules it says you do FNP before other effects that are triggered off losing a wound.

I quoted it before, but here is your rules quote: "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound." from the Disgustingly resilient rule.

If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.

This argument has no rules basis. The Acidic Ichor has the exact same trigger wording, you have no grounds for claiming that the FNP roll must go first as per rules.
If you roll for Acidic Ichor and then FNP and the FNP passes, then yes that means you haven't taken a wound and yes that creates a paradox. But as I previously demonstrated, that's no more of a paradox than FNP causes to itself.

 alextroy wrote:

p5freak wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.

P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt lose the wound when the FNP roll is successful.

 Super Ready wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.

This argument has no rules basis.

False. It follows logically that to know if the model actually loses a wound you need to roll all FNP type things first.

This is the way it worked in 8th and it is the way it works in 8.1. (I mean 9th, though 9th is just 8.1 edition since they did not make any real core changes).

The Acidic Ichor has the exact same trigger wording, you have no grounds for claiming that the FNP roll must go first as per rules.

False again. You do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.

If you roll for Acidic Ichor and then FNP and the FNP passes, then yes that means you haven't taken a wound and yes that creates a paradox. But as I previously demonstrated, that's no more of a paradox than FNP causes to itself.

It is not possible to roll for Acidic Ichor first, as at that point you do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.

if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound, and as such if you roll for anything triggering off that wound, you are breaking the rules.

As p5freak said, P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. if you pass FNP this does not happen, so you do not get removed and nothing else can trigger either.

This is how is was in 8th, and given the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, i do not expect it to change, no one should.

 p5freak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

p5freak wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.

P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt lose the wound when the FNP roll is successful.

By that logic we shoudn't roll for FnP at all, as the Plaguebearer would have 0 wounds before rolling.
Which is why (older) FnP is just such a paradoxical existence

False again. You do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.

This is what causes the paradox. If this is the case, you don't have permission to roll for FNP in the first place. Because you can't know whether the model has lost a wound, until you've taken a roll that you haven't yet met conditions for.
If you argue that the act of inflicting damage to a state where a model would take a wound is enough to trigger FNP and allow it happen, you have to also argue that it's enough to trigger Acidic Ichor because it uses the exact same wording that FNP does. You can't have it apply in one case and not the other.

It does cause a paradox, luckily the FNP rules allow for that paradox.

But if you trigger other rules on a wound that was not lost, you have broken the rules.

Basically if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.

Once FNP is rolled, we can trigger other rules if the model still lost a wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
Once FNP is rolled, we can trigger other rules if the model still lost a wound.

There is no rules basis for applying this order, though. A common sense one perhaps - but not strict RAW.
Show where the rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger.

 Super Ready wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
Once FNP is rolled, we can trigger other rules if the model still lost a wound.

There is no rules basis for applying this order, though. A common sense one perhaps - but not strict RAW.
Show where the rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger.

There is logic for applying this order, though.

The rules rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger by virtue of FNP negating the wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is logic for applying this order, though.

The rules rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger by virtue of FNP negating the wound.

So the rules, in fact, say no such thing? Right. Glad we sorted that out.

You coming to a conclusion at the end of an - at best - disputable chain of logic is not "the rules say".

Maethbalnane wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is logic for applying this order, though.

The rules rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger by virtue of FNP negating the wound.

So the rules, in fact, say no such thing? Right. Glad we sorted that out.

You coming to a conclusion at the end of an - at best - disputable chain of logic is not "the rules say".

The rules say that by virtue of the FNP wording. It is not explicitly spelled out, but it is a part of the FNP chain of events.

Your logic chain is not represented in the rules.
I will admit, it's HIWPI absolutely - but not RAW. And this is why I hope that new wording sticks around beyond just Ghazghkull and Makari.

 Super Ready wrote:
Your logic chain is not represented in the rules.

Except it is. This is because, if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.

I will admit, it's HIWPI absolutely - but not RAW. And this is why I hope that new wording sticks around beyond just Ghazghkull and Makari.

This is also how is was in 8th, and given the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, i do not expect it to change, no one should.

I have to say, this has to be one of the best BCB "Rules that break the game" thread links of all time for 9th. If your Great Unclean one fails their save and takes a wound, but then makes a 5+ FNP, the entire universe crosses the streams, and divides by zero, because you cannot simultaneously be "Wounded" and succeed on a FNP at the same time. Glorious.

DeathReaper, as usual, you're conflating how you would play it with RAW.

What you'd do is perfectly reasonable, and likely how GW intends it given Makari's wording.
But it ain't RAW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
DeathReaper, as usual, you're conflating how you would play it with RAW.

False. This is RAW.

I hardly ever say HIWPI and when I do I mark it HIWPI.

What you'd do is perfectly reasonable, and likely how GW intends it given Makari's wording.
But it ain't RAW.

It is RAW. if you follow the logic of the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
DeathReaper, as usual, you're conflating how you would play it with RAW.

False. This is RAW.

I hardly ever say HIWPI and when I do I mark it HIWPI.

What you'd do is perfectly reasonable, and likely how GW intends it given Makari's wording.
But it ain't RAW.

It is RAW. if you follow the logic of the rules.

That's just plain wrong.

Disgustingly Resilient and Ichor Warding have the exact same trigger-to determine which goes first, you'd use sequencing.

It's janky and not RAI, nor HIWPI, but it is RAW.

Let me put this a different way. Here's the wording again:

Disgustingly Resilient: "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice"
Acidic Ichor: "Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound"

Where in the rules are we told that DR takes timing precedent over AI? Why is it not acceptable to complete the steps for AI, then resolve DR, before the wound is applied?
To accept your stance, I'll need a specific wording from the rules on timing, not a counterpoint about being able to continue the game or not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is RAW. if you follow the logic of the rules.

That's just plain wrong.

Disgustingly Resilient and Ichor Warding have the exact same trigger-to determine which goes first, you'd use sequencing.

It's janky and not RAI, nor HIWPI, but it is RAW.

False.

You would not use sequencing, because Ichor Warding can not trigger if there is not a wound. Disgustingly Resilient makes it so that the model does not lose that wound.

How is Ichor warding being used if the model does not lose that wound?

It is rules interactions like this that make FNP supercede any other rule that triggers off when a "model with this ability loses a wound". Because if FNP is passed, the model does not actually lose the wound. This was the same way in 8th, and with the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, I would expect Disgustingly Resilient to be changed to have similar verbiage so there is less confusion.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is rules interactions like this that make FNP supercede any other rule that triggers off when a "model with this ability loses a wound". Because if FNP is passed, the model does not actually lose the wound. This was the same way in 8th, and with the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, I would expect Disgustingly Resilient to be changed to have similar verbiage so there is less confusion.

If the wording has to be updated, wouldn't that mean that the RAW doesn't do what the RAI is?

If the wording was fine, it wouldn't need to be updated.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If the wording has to be updated, wouldn't that mean that the RAW doesn't do what the RAI is?

No, FAQ's are clarifications of what the RAW is 99% of the time, only rarely are they rule changes. This is not a situation where the RAW will be changed.

If the wording was fine, it wouldn't need to be updated.

That is of course false. They clarify things all the time without changing how the rule works. Sometimes the wording on the RAW can be confusing so a clarification FAQ can help in most situations.

For example the wording about the interaction between special characters and relics is clear, yet this FAQ exists.

"Q: Can the Honoured Sergeant Stratagem be used to give Sergeant
Chronus a Relic from the Special-issue Wargear Relics?
A: No."

From CODEX SUPPLEMENT: ULTRAMARINES Indomitus Version 1.1 in the FAQ's section. 1st entry.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/XYLNrAyfljHcBqzu.pdf

Just because an FAQ can answer a question without changing the RAW doesn't mean the RAW is fine in all cases.

You yourself said that the wording should be updated. Not "They should FAQ this," but...

I would expect Disgustingly Resilient to be changed to have similar verbiage so there is less confusion.

If it was clear, there wouldn't be confusion.

Deathreaper as you are so adamant you are right, please show us to the location in our rules that when a model loses a wound FNP is the first thing that can be triggered by that. Been asked of you multiple times now in different ways and is the only thing we want to know. Answer that or concede that either or could be triggered first as it is written badly.

90% of the people who play the game have NEVER had this issue. This is rules lawyering at it's best. Convince yourself that you alone know the answer, and call anyone else who disagrees with it wrong.

You have to use sequencing. You cannot roll a FnP without first losing a wound. If you lose a wound you trigger the Acidic thing. Once the attacks are complete, you then roll FnPs. Seriously, this is such a non-issue.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
90% of the people who play the game have NEVER had this issue. This is rules lawyering at it's best. Convince yourself that you alone know the answer, and call anyone else who disagrees with it wrong.

You have to use sequencing. You cannot roll a FnP without first losing a wound. If you lose a wound you trigger the Acidic thing. Once the attacks are complete, you then roll FnPs. Seriously, this is such a non-issue.

RAW, you can apply the Ichor before the FNP on your turn, since they have the exact same trigger.

Now, with Makari's updated wording as precedence, FNP should happen BEFORE the wound is lost and therefore solves this issue neatly, but most FNP in the game, as-written, is pretty well borked RAW. I agree that it's not an issue in actual play, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved to avoid issues like the sequencing with Ichor.

Vrigor wrote:
Deathreaper as you are so adamant you are right, please show us to the location in our rules that when a model loses a wound FNP is the first thing that can be triggered by that. Been asked of you multiple times now in different ways and is the only thing we want to know. Answer that or concede that either or could be triggered first as it is written badly.

I have, several times.

Here it is again:

 DeathReaper wrote:
...if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.